Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)

[Bjenks548]

There was a similar idea to this last year to have a standard position for a suspension bar. As it was a great idea, it never worked because teams all went on their own plan.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by GGCO

I'd love to see something like this done. However, I think it will be up to FIRST or one of the big/respected teams to develop this.

Don't wait fror FIRST to develop anything like this. It is up to teams.

Also don't wait for FIRST Robotics Team xxxx (or xxx or xx) to develop it - you're just as good. Just do it, everyone will comment, we'll come to a consensus....done.

Waiting for 'someone else' to do it is the wrong idea.

[darist]

Originally Posted by Bjenks548

There was a similar idea to this last year to have a standard position for a suspension bar. As it was a great idea, it never worked because teams all went on their own plan.

This is a great reason to try again. What went wrong last year? What should we do different this year to get the standard defined clearly and adopted? Maybe a catchy name and logo would help (think about Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, HDMI, USB...)?

One idea already mentioned in this thread that I liked:
Compile a list of teams that commit to implementing the standard. When you get to the regional, you'll know what pits to visit for compatible minibots / hostbots.

[ChristopherBuck]

Originally Posted by EricH

I was thinking (dangerous I know) that it would be possible for the minibots to either have a tower contact button or a "you're on your own" dead-man switch, and just be running a program all match that said, wait until X switch toggles to the other position. Minimal programming needed. Or have the NXT in a standard-ish area so a servo mounted on a "flexible" arm could hit the run button easily.

I like the idea of the dead man switch. What about if the dead man switch kept a power switch open on the minibot, and when the dead man switch falls out, the circuit is closed, and the minibot powers on?

Originally Posted by luc.bettaieb

Yeah, I'd say as much as possible teams should strive to make their robots be able to launch any kind of minibot that can fit in the 12x12x12 inch dimensions.

I agree. And at the same time, teams should construct their minibots such that they dont have any oddities that may hinder deployment by some systems such as curved faces; they may not work with certain implementations of a push deployment


I believe that minibots should be designed such that they are deployment-mechanism-agnostic, be it by pushing, swinging, or something else, because teams will end up having to make different deployment mechanisms based on how the rest of their robot is designed

[Grim Tuesday]

I propose the name of: MIND: MINibot Deployment


It is a ramp that is essentially drawbridge, that deploys at 30 inches (at the line) and emulates deploying at base level. Other than that, there must be 12*12*12 space inside the robot to store minibots.

[EricH]

I think there are 2 things to be standardized.
1) Minibot activation.
2) Minibot-pole transition device.

#2 is the simplest. The drawbridge or a platform device is simple: move ramp/robot to either the base or the pole and let it do its thing. Telling it when to go could be as simple as a bar across the end that when released turns the minibot on or lets it go.

#1 is harder. NXT device, pure mechanical, non-NXT... Ideally, the start trigger is contained on the minibot and is "running" when the minibot is loaded onto the hostbot.

The 30" height might be tricky--it depends on whether the minibot is allowed to be above the line. But substitute your favorite height in there as you need to.

[Radical Pi]

Originally Posted by EricH

#2 is the simplest. The drawbridge or a platform device is simple: move ramp/robot to either the base or the pole and let it do its thing. Telling it when to go could be as simple as a bar across the end that when released turns the minibot on or lets it go.

Probably the best way to even be unintentionally compatible with most minibots would be to have a 12x12x12 (or a little more for comfort. Bots have feelings too) box with one side open that the minibot comes out of. On the closed sides of the box would be containment bars to keep the minibot from moving. The open side would have a gap in the bars that allows them to go around the pole. When launching the bot slides out of the box with the top open and climbs

Originally Posted by EricH

#1 is harder. NXT device, pure mechanical, non-NXT... Ideally, the start trigger is contained on the minibot and is "running" when the minibot is loaded onto the hostbot.

An internal limit switch that detects the pole would probably be enough, and would work with almost any design (triggers nxt program to start, closes circuit to a motor, etc)

[efoote868]

Quick question, one to (perhaps) get people thinking:

Are you allowed to use an IR Receiver with a minibot?
(does this qualify? http://unlimited.syraweb.org/NewFTCkits.htm)

How easy is it to distribute a software module, an IR Led and some wire, and perhaps a button to teams at your regional? Will that be too much weight on their robot? How difficult will that be to install on a generic robot?


That's probably the best way I can think of to get it going. Let me know what you think.

[ChristopherBuck]

Originally Posted by EricH

#2 is the simplest. The drawbridge or a platform device is simple: move ramp/robot to either the base or the pole and let it do its thing. Telling it when to go could be as simple as a bar across the end that when released turns the minibot on or lets it go.

Originally Posted by Radical Pi

Probably the best way to even be unintentionally compatible with most minibots would be to have a 12x12x12 (or a little more for comfort. Bots have feelings too) box with one side open that the minibot comes out of. On the closed sides of the box would be containment bars to keep the minibot from moving. The open side would have a gap in the bars that allows them to go around the pole. When launching the bot slides out of the box with the top open and climbs

Why are we specifying exactly how teams must deploy the robots? What about just standardizing that all minibots fit some X size requirement and some Y shape requirement and accept activation by some A,B, or C method and leave the rest up to individual team design? Lets not say 'All minibots must work with this drawbridge deployment mechanism' and rather leave it to everyone to create minibots that dont depend on a single deployment mechanism. Not all teams are going to use such a deployment method, so why limit the standard to just those teams?

[EricH]

We're trying to pick a system that will work with a variety of minibots to get them to the pole here. If teams put a 12"+ cube on their robots, with some form of platform that gets a minibot to the pole, it seems that that has the largest potential to accept any random minibot. That leaves activation up to the minibot users, but standardizing activation methods would be nice too.

If you standardize minibot activation on the minibot, teams have to design for that. If you standardize a deployment that can accept any minibot, and have activation be automatic on the minibot, that's easier to do.

[anyheck]

Perhaps a Bayonet - type of mounting where your robot has a delivery system,
eg a 1" square tube with a right angle end that actuates out, you can then provide a female connector to a partner team to mount on their mini-bot and make it compatible.

Bad thing is probably the need for re-inspection of the mini-bot in this case if it's done on-the-fly.

Ideally your mini-bot could be launched electrically using a Digital input or closed switch arrangement or have its own internal detection of pole contact.

Nothing says you have to make arrangements for the bot deployment at the competition, you could agree with some partner teams locally to create a regional standard.

Teams can build their bots to intentionally be traded off at the regional for the additional points any time it scores.

That's co-oper-tastic.

[Grim Tuesday]

What if all the standard was would be a 12x12x12, and each minibot had to include its own deployment mechanism?

[Dustin Shadbolt]

This may seem stupid but how will they stop the program from running on the mini bot? I mean a simple limit switch type device would work to activate the programming for the mini bot. I had an idea of it being on the inside of the bot and once it hits the pole it just takes off. Then once we get a confirmation about if the robot can come back down just plan around that also.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

What if all the standard was would be a 12x12x12, and each minibot had to include its own deployment mechanism?

As long as the deployment mechanism was contained in the 12" cube, that'd be fine.

It's when the deployment mechanism goes outside, or when the robot's docking area isn't where the deployment mechanism needs to be to deploy right that there's a problem.

W/R/T stopping the minibot from running, I was thinking a switch at the pole as well. Activate it, and the minibot turns on. Biggest problem is the hostbots that expect the minibot to move out on its own onto the base--but another switch with a "standardish" mounting area set and a servo on the robot to activate it would probably work.

[ChristopherBuck]

Originally Posted by EricH

If you standardize minibot activation on the minibot, teams have to design for that. If you standardize a deployment that can accept any minibot, and have activation be automatic on the minibot, that's easier to do.

How about standardizing that all compliant hostbots will be able to provide a quick-detach DIO clip and a dead man switch for minibots to use for activation, as well as a 12"x12"x12" bay for the minibot for the duration of the match. At endgame, the Hostbots would then place minibots on the tower and provide an activation signal via the DIO line, and then (If connected) disconnect the DIO line or dead-man switch. Of course, the minibots would not have to use these activation methods, and could choose to activate themselves by detecting the presence of the pole. A standard such as this allows many different implementations of minibots and delivery systems to be compatible.